While culture manifests itself in several ways, it is most subject to measurement and change through work group norms. These norms are the unwritten "rules of the game," what really counts in order to get ahead or, alternatively, how to stay out of trouble. TheKilmann-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey provides a systematic tool for pinpointing cultural norms.
These various profiles will enable you to pinpoint the particular Culture-Gaps that are barriers to organizational success. Specifically, four culture-gaps are identified:
Task Support includes cultural norms that are technical in nature with a short time frame. For example: "Share information with other groups only when it benefits your own work group" versus "Share information to help other groups." "Concentrate only on your own tasks" versus "Help others complete their tasks." Task Innovation includes cultural norms that are technical in nature with a long time frame. For example: "Keep things the same" versus "Make changes." Discourage creativity" versus "Encourage creativity."
Social Responsibility includes cultual norms that have a people orientation with a short time frame. For example: "Don't participate in social activities with others in your organization" versus "Participate in social activities with others in your organization." "Don't bother getting to know the people in your work group" versus "Get to know the people in your work group." Personal Freedom includes cultural norms that have a people orientation with a long time frame. For example: "Live for your job or career" versus "Live for yourself and your family." "Believe in the organization's values" versus "Believe in your own values."
Since the two underlying dimensions of cultural norms(1) technical versus people and (2) short term versus long termcover such a broad spectrum of experience in an organization, the resulting four types of Culture-Gaps are expected to capture the great variety of cultural norms that affect both morale and performance.
The organization is old, large, and entrenched with bureaucratic procedures (which seem to come with age and sizeand efforts to control people and costs); The organization has experienced large doses of autocratic leadership in the past and, therefore, has thoroughly demoralized its employees (or, at the very least, has taught them not to take responsibility for their decisions and actions); The organization was very successful decades ago and, as a result, habitually clings to its out-of-date formulas for success (instead of realizing that an altogether new paradigm is needed for today's world);
The organization has encountered a sudden shift from a very stable to a mostly dynamic environment and, therefore, is still living in the past (or, at a minimum, is under considerable pressure to catch up to today's world); The organization has implemented numerous cycles of singular, quick-fix approaches and, thereby, has failed to transform itself (and has, as a consequence, taught its employees that it may not be possible to transform an organization).
Moreover, often overwhelming stress gives the impression that there is too much to do with so little time. With collaborating, however, it takes time for people to explore and then express what they really need and want. Thus, only use collaborating when you have the time (or can take the time) for a collaborative conversation.
Bottom line: Only avoid when that approach to conflict serves to satisfy your needs as well as the needs of otherswhether in the short term or long term. But dont avoid conflict simply because that mode is unfamiliar or uncomfortable to you. With awareness and practice (which builds self-confidence), you can easily learn to get both your needs and the other persons needs metfor the best of both worlds.
Bottom line: Choosing a mode wisely, but also using that mode in the most constructive manner possible, will go far in producing wellbeing and effective resolutions of conflict, rather than bad feelings and a potential worsening of the situation.